Comments 0

Document transcript

The topic for the October and November BADL’s is: Resolved: The United States federalgovernment should ban violent video games.

Sample Affirmative Justifications

Justification 1:Violent video games create violence.

A wealth of statistical information suggests a correlation between violent video gamesand actual violence. Laboratory studies and real-world experiments suggest heightened statesof aggression, and learning that violence is justified and rewarded in society.

Justification 2: Video games are unique.

Video games are fundamentally different than other forms of violent media becausethey are interactive. Instead of merely watching the violence, the player actively participates inthe violent act. Further, the player is rewarded for violent acts, learning the lesson thatviolence is a necessary and positive outcome to many situations.

Justification 3: Video games affect people throughout their lives.

The recent Norway shooter is an example of someone who was affected by the playingof violent video games throughout their entire life. It is not merely that children will behavemore aggressively on the playground, rather, they learn life lessons that follow them even intoadulthood.

Sample Negative Justifications

Justification 1: Violent video games do not create violent behavior.

While video games may cause someone to be more aggressive in a lab setting, this“aggression” has no real world corollary. Merely because someone’s heart may race and theirwillingness to do harm to an inanimate object may increase, does not mean they are morewilling to commit crimes with a weapon.

Violent video games are the equivalent of rock and roll in another era—the latestsupposed scourge to corrupt the young generation. However, by looking for quick and easyexplanations for violent crime, society is likely to overlook the true causes of family violenceand domestic abuse.

There is no “quick fix” and looking for one causes us to ignore deeperproblems in society.

Justification 3: Self-regulation is the solution.

The video game industry responds to the problem of violent video games through anaggressive rating system. Systems like these, designed by experts in the field, will be superiorto government bureaucrats coming up with ineffective solutions. Industry can handle theproblem of violent video games on their own.

"Scientific research has repeatedly demonstrated that children learn what video games teach, andoften that lesson is doing violence."

In the following viewpoint, David S. Bickham, staff scientist at the Center on Media and ChildHealth and Children's Hospital in Boston, contends that violent video games can lead to violentbehaviors in children. According to Bickham, violent video games typically reward aggressionand teach players that violence is an acceptable form of problem solving. After long-termexposure to violent games, this message is ingrained in players and can lead to lasting negativeeffects, Bickham maintains.

As you read, consider the following questions:

1.

According to Bickham, what specific characteristics of video games make themespecially effective at instilling beliefs

and behaviors in children?

2.

Why, in Bickham's assessment, did early video game research show minimal differencesbetween exposure to violent and nonviolent video games?

3.

What are the bystander effect and the appetite effect produced by violent media,according to Bickham?

Video games are a relatively new form of entertainment media. While the body of evidence onvideo game violence is growing, we must consider it within the broader field of researchexploring portrayals of violence in television, film, and other forms of visual media. There arefive decades of media violence research based on a sound theoretical and empiricalunderstanding of learning, aggression, and social cognition. A core ongoing project of the Centeron Media and Child Health is the consolidation of all existing research on media effects into onepublicly available database. After 3 years of work, the database includes over 1,200 researchreports published in peer-reviewed scientific journals investigating the effects of media violence.These studies show consensus in the state of the science that a strong and consistent relationshipexists between viewing violent media and increased levels of anxiety, desensitization andaggressive thoughts and behaviors among young people. This body of research derives from abroad spectrum of academic fields, including psychology, communications, public health, andcriminal justice, and it draws added strength from the vast array of methodologies utilized by thedifferent disciplines.

The Undeniable Draw

of Video Games

Taken alone, no study is perfect. Even the best study design can be criticized for the limitationsof its method. Taken together, however, each study about media violence provides a piece of asingle puzzle that all interlock to reveal onepicture. In this case, that picture is clear—usingviolent media contributes to children's violent behavior. A variety of complementarymethodologies that have resulted in similar findings have been used to generate this overallconclusion. Scientists have

exposed children to violent media in laboratories and found that theybehave more aggressively than children who saw non-violent television or played non-violentgames. Using survey studies, scientists have found that even after controlling for dozens ofcomplex environmental and individual characteristics linked to aggression, watching violenttelevision and playing violent video games still increases the likelihood that a child will beviolent. Researchers have followed children over their entire lives and found that viewing violenttelevision as a child is one of the best predictors of criminal violent behaviors as an adult.

While the large body of research on violent television and film provides a solid foundation forour understanding of the effects of

violent video games, there are reasons to believe that theinfluences of violent video games are stronger than those of other forms of screen violence. Allmedia teach—whether by design or by default. Video games are exceptional teaching tools,incorporating many techniques that promote learning. First, video games are interactive,allowing the player to be closely involved with the main character and to control that character'sactions. Second, video games directly reward the child's success in performing

the actions, withvisual effects, points, and opportunities to take on new challenges. Third, video games typicallyrequire almost complete attention, necessitating constant eyes-on-screen and hand-eyecoordination to succeed in the game. Finally, video games are designed to be incredibly engagingand "fun," often leading children to slip deeply into a "flow state" in which they may be atincreased susceptibility to the messages of the game. Scientific research has repeatedlydemonstrated that children learn what video games teach, and often that lesson is doing violence.

Because the technology and media form are newer, investigating the effects of violent videogames is a youngerfield than television violence research. Early video game research wasinconsistent. Studies performed in the 1980s were limited by electronic gaming technology; atthe time violent and non-violent games were often very similar. One study, for example,compared the effects of playing Missile Command (considered the violent game) to Pac-Man(considered the non-violent game). Both games feature abstract geometric icons interacting withone another; both have the player's icons destroying or devouring other icons. As video gameshave become more graphically sophisticated and capable of depicting violence in a much moregraphic and realistic way, the differences between violent and non-violent video games havedramatically increased. Not surprisingly, research exploring the effects of these newer games ismuch more clear and consistent than previous research. The newest research has definitively andrepeatedly converged on the conclusion that playing violent video games is linked to children'saggression.

We allknow that children are not automatons who mimic everything they see; their behavior ismuch more complicated than that. However, there is a widely held misconception that unlesschildren immediately imitate the violence they experience in a video game, they are unaffectedby it. Children who play Grand Theft Auto don't immediately begin stealing cars and shootingpolice officers. As a result, many would have you believe that this means that violent videogames have no influence. We cannot assume that the absence of immediate and direct imitationmeans that there are no effects on children.

In rare situations violence from media may be directly imitated after a single exposure, but themost pervasive effects of violent media are not direct imitation and comefrom repeatedviewings. With each exposure, the child's perception of the world is shifted to include violenceas a common and acceptable occurrence. The child's behaviors evolve to correspond with thisperception and can follow "behavioral scripts" established through experiencing violent media.

Positive Reinforcement for Violent Behavior

Four primary effects of violent media that have been consistently documented in the scientificliterature: the aggressor, victim, bystander, and appetite effects. Theaggressor effect is the mostwell known—using violent media increases the likelihood that a child will think and behaveaggressively toward others. The victim effect is the tendency for users of violent media to see theworld as a scary and violent place promoting anxiety and protective behaviors. The bystandereffect describes how violent media desensitizes its users to the real-life violence making themgenerally less caring and sympathetic to victims of violence and less likely to intervene whenthey witness violence. Finally, the appetite effect demonstrates that using violent media oftenincreases children's desire to see more violence.

While each of these effects can have substantial influence on children's behaviors, the aggressoreffect is perhaps the most troublesome because it puts children at immediate risk of committingviolence. It is, therefore, critical to understand how exposure to violent video games translatesinto aggressive behavior. This process is grounded in our understanding of how children learn,how aggression in general is cultivated, and how video game violence affects its users.

Violent video games present a world in which violence is justified, rewarded, and often the onlyoption for success. Exposure to this world primes children

for hostile thoughts and behaviorsimmediately after playing a game. When children play violent video games, they become bothphysically and mentally aroused. Their heart rates increase and their blood pressure rises. Theybegin to think aggressively andto solve problems with violence. In this heightened and primedstate, children are more likely to perceive other people's behaviors as aggressive and they aremore likely to respond aggressively. In laboratory studies designed to test this effect, participantswho played violent video games were more likely to punish competitors than participants whoplayed non-violent games.

Over time, repeated exposure to violent media can have long-term effects. A person's pattern ofbehavior can become more aggressive through the adoption of aggressive skills, beliefs, andattitudes, desensitization to violence, and an aggressive approach to interactions with otherpeople. Scientific findings have repeatedly provided solid evidence for this process—usingviolent media as

a child predicts aggressive behavior in adulthood.

A Varying but Always Violent Response

Violent video games often have subtle effects but may lead to dramatic consequences for somechildren. Certain characteristics make some children more susceptible tomedia effects, whileother children are more resilient. However, no known factor or set of factors has yet beenidentified that completely safeguards children from the influences of violent media.

Children's susceptibility to the effects of media violencevaries with their age. Children youngerthan eight years are more vulnerable to media violence effects because they have not yetdeveloped the ability to discriminate fully between fantasy and reality in media content.Research has consistently shown thatyoung children often behave more aggressively than olderchildren do after playing violent video games.

Children who identify with the perpetrator of media violence are also at increased risk ofbecoming aggressive. Violent video games, particularly the aptly named "first-person shooter"games, place the player in the role of the violent perpetrator. This level of involvement is likelyto increase the player's identification with the violence and its subsequent cognitive andbehavioral effects.

Cognitive and emotional maturity tends to increase children's resistance to the effects of violentmedia. It is important to remember, however, that neither these nor any other set ofcharacteristics fully protects a child from all of the subtle and pervasive effectsof violent media.

Further Readings

Books



Tim Allen and Jean Seaton The Media of Conflict: War Reporting and Representations ofEthnic Violence. New York: Zed Books, 1999.

Should a thirteen-year-old be able to purchase a school-shooting simulator without parents'knowledge or consent?

The Supreme Court says that freedom of speech requires they do have

that opportunity. On June 27, in a 7-2 decision, the court struck down a

California law barringthe sale of graphically violent video games to people under eighteen.

I haven't seen legal minds commenting on what seem (to me) to be obvious consequences of thisdecision. If the First Amendment requires that minors be able to purchase graphically violentvideo games, does this mean minors may attend R-rated movies without an adult or purchasepornography? We have longstanding traditions and laws that regulate the speech to which minorsmay be exposed without the consent of theirparents.

Research on the effects of violent video games has shown that parents and society have reason tobe concerned. We're not talking about the games from my youth like Space Invaders or gamesthat involved a cartoon-like image of a person falling over. Today's games include graphic,movie-quality images of death and dismemberment. And unlike a movie, which is viewedpassively, game players are actively causing the scenes that unfold before them.

Yes, video games are pretend. Of course, they are. Even

young teenagers who play the gamesknow they aren't real. Yet, even passively viewing pretend images affects the way people think.Television commercials are fictional, to the point of fantasy, and we all know this. The reasonsome of the most successfulbusinesses in the world advertise--even paying over two-milliondollars for a thirty-second Super Bowl spot--is not to generously provide free television for usbut because data shows that advertising changes consumers' attitudes and behavior. Activeparticipation, like playing a video game, changes attitudes and behavior more efficiently thanpassively watching TV.

Anders Behring Breivik, the man charged with killing at least seventy-six people in the recentbomb attack and summer camp shooting in Norway,

writes about playing the graphically violentgame Modern Warfare 2. To learn more about this game, I was required to enter my birth date onits website, modernwarfare2.infinityward. com. This indicates that the producers of the gamerecognize the contentis inappropriate for children. The game is essentially a combat simulatorthat provides a virtual training ground for people prone to mass murder.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Will most kids who play games that simulate school shootings live out the roles they

areplaying? No. Will most kids who play Grand Theft Auto steal cars? No. Very few kids who playviolent video games will perform those acts in real life. The changes most kids will experience asa result of playing violent video games are more subtle than becoming mass murderers, but arestill quite measurable.

For example, greater exposure to violent media desensitizes people to the effects of violence andaggression. What would normally be abhorrent becomes "not so bad" or perhaps even funny.Violent video games cause users to think more violent thoughts. Typical behavioral effects fromthese changes in thinking might range from not being appropriately moved by images of realhuman suffering to being more argumentative and disrespectful.

Although there

isn't ample space here for a full consideration of the effects of using violent videogames, I can easily spend an entire class period in my course on child development discussingviolent media. Among its well-established effects is that users of violentmedia are more likely tobelieve that crime victims deserved their fate. In addition, users of violent media have a distortedview of the world, believing life to be significantly less safe than it is.

It's true that people who are prone to aggressiveness

are more likely to use violent media. It isalso true that people who use violent media become more aggressive. None of us want to believethat we will acquire a taste for the distasteful, but if we consume enough of what began asdistasteful, it becomessatisfying.

Make no mistake about it; video games can be a great use of free time. Research shows that kidswho play video games develop better spatial skills and hand-eye coordination. Multiplayergames can also teach social and management skills. Thesegames are also just plain fun. Yet thebenefits of video games do not require gruesome images.

We endure a lot of ugliness to protect our right to free speech. Like Justices Clarence Thomasand Steven Breyer, I do not believe that denying the sale of violent video games to people undereighteen would have strained the First Amendment. With or without laws that require adultinvolvement for kids to have questionable material, however, parents must be parents. Laws areno substitute for parental monitoring.While I find the Court's decision disappointing, ithighlights the need for parents to be proactive and willing to make tough decisions.

Joseph J. Horton is professor of psychology at Grove City College and a researcher with theCenter for Vision & Values.

"Popular culture, through violent film, music and video games, often glorifies the

use of arms."

Studies show that social and cultural forces prompt some people to turn to gun violence, claims DariuszDziewanski

in the following viewpoint. Pop culture images lead some young people to believe thatwielding guns can lead to affluence andpower, he asserts. Indeed,Dziewanski

maintains, guns are oftenassociated with other symbols of success in popular culture such as expensive cars, jewelry, and sexuallyavailable women. For poor, marginalized youth who see few roads to advancement, guns have a potentappeal, he reasons.Dziewanski

works for the Canadian International Development Agency, whosemission is to reduce poverty and promote economic equity.

As you read, consider the following questions:

1.

According to an author quoted in the viewpoint, how do media create the perception that morecrime exists, when crime is actually decreasing?

2.

What reasons did Ottawa gang members give for carrying guns?

3.

What are some of the risk factors that the Small Arms Survey identified in a 2006 article?

"Thefirst gun I bought was from a friend of a friend—a 35 [millimeter]. I had held pistolsbefore, but finally had my own. I was 16 and remember staring down the barrel like I was goingto shoot. But I had never fired one before and if somebody had shot at me,

I wouldn't haveknown how to shoot back.

"I was fine to just show it around and act tough. It made me feel respected."

So says a former Ottawa gang member, recalling a misspent childhood among guns and gangs.Six-foot-two, tattooed and wearing a baggy track suit, this imposing stereotype of a self-proclaimed criminal is quick to laugh at himself now as he tells stories about his past. "I wasbadass," he says, "but I was also totally scared."

Social and Cultural Forces

While most violent crimes in Canada are committed with knives, clubs and other bluntinstruments, firearms do contribute to social violence in certain contexts, especially amongyoung males. In particular, there is growing empirical evidence that social and cultural forcesinfluence whether or

not an individual turns to armed violence. Despite overall drops in overallviolent gun crime in Canada, a national fixation on guns is intensifying among youth, and thisgrowing trend is being fuelled by media and pop culture.

Violence, particularly gunviolence, can be learned. As young men take lessons from the worldaround them, some appear to relate to violent imagery, as it justifies and even glorifies their ownuse of arms.

Although the vast majority of youth in Canada are not turning to guns, someare identifying witha pop culture of violence that leads them to believe that guns are their ticket to affluence andpower. Caught between the material world and the real world, young men in impoverishedneighbourhoods pick up firearms hoping to defend themselves against a form of structuralviolence that kills people slowly through alienation, exclusion and marginalization. Perceptionsare reality, and in their world the perception is (as the NRA [National Rifle Association ofAmerica] is so fond of saying) that an armed person is a citizen, while an unarmed person ismerely a subject.

The Marginalized Youth-Violence Connection

A February 2008 Statistics Canada report entitled "Firearms and Violent Crime" revealed thatmore Canadian youth are using guns when committing acts of violent crime. While the reportalso points to a 30-year low in overall violent gun crime, the percentage of youth aged 12 to 17years accused of a firearm-related violent crime is at its highest point since 1998. The percentageof adolescents accused of homicide in 2006 is higher than it has been in over three decades, withmore getting involved in serious criminal activity at a younger age, often as members of gangs inurban centres.

Christian Pearce is the co-authour of the bookEnter the Babylon System, an exploration of theemerging gun culture in North America. "Once guns are present and combined with poverty," hesays, "they become problematic. Youth are not inherently violent, but are often marginalized andscared. In neighborhoods with violence, youth often feel threatened, even by police. That's whenthey turn to guns." This seems to be particularly so when young men are excluded from non-violent avenues of advancement, or if they face discrimination or threats to their security. This isnot to say that armed violence is a reasonable or constructive response to marginalization, but inthese situations, violence can have a powerful appeal.

As Pearce points out, "media jumps on criminal activity as entertainment and creates theperception that there is more crime, when crime is actually decreasing." The day after theaforementioned Statistics Canada report, stories of youth and guns dominated news headlines,with low overall gun crime reduced to a subplot. That seems fair enough. Armed youth violenceis a problem that should be reported, discussed and addressed—but not in a way thatsensationalizes the issue, or leads to what Pearce calls the "demonization" of youth, which iswhat tends to happen. In his opinion, this message is "simplistic and archaic" and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead, more must be done to "believe in, respect and invest in youth."

Anti-Social Capital

Part of the problem, according to James Sheptycki, a professor of criminology at YorkUniversity, isthat the public discussion of these issues, and of their potential solutions, too oftenfalls into blind ideology and polarizing extremes. "Far too much complexity is lost," Sheptyckisays. "More nuanced discussion must emerge if the policies developed totackle gun crime are tobe effective." Perhaps this lack of nuance stems in part from the news media's bad-news-firstpolicy, or the reporting of stories painted in sweeping strokes. Maybe it is that guns represent apolitically charged topic that is often

The city of Ottawa distinguishes itself as both a scene of youth gang violence and, potentially, atleast, a source of leadership in the efforts to reducesuch violence. In October 2007, the federalgovernment's Throne Speech identified "tackling crime," particularly violent gun crime, as oneof its key priorities. The government translated these promises into Bill C-2, which, among othermeasures, seeks tougher minimum prison sentences for serious gun crimes that involve restrictedor prohibited weapons or are connected with gangs, as well as longer sentences for other guncrimes like trafficking and smuggling. In addition, the bill also proposes that youthcharged withviolent crimes, including gun crimes, be tried as adults. Although some, especially victimgroups, applaud the Tories [political party] for their tough stance on gun crime, many see theseefforts as counterproductive. "You can't incarcerate your way out of gun crime," argues OttawaUniversity Criminology Professor Irvin Waller. "There must be an effort made to address thesources of gun violence, by building safety through prevention."

Meanwhile, the city of Ottawa boasts an estimated 600 gangmembers, typically concentrated inlow-income, high-density communities in the city's Greenbelt. Gang membership in the city isoften linked to guns. In an effort to give a face to a problem that has typically been reduced tostatistics and stereotypes, Iarranged to sit down with three former gang members from eastOttawa.

Protection and Respect

When asked why they carried guns, each cited protection and respect as their main reasons. "Ifyou shoot it or not, you've got respect and feel like you do not have to take anything fromanybody," said one of the former gang members. He had been in the gang until only recently,and still displayed the boyish antagonism of somebody who is used to being threatened.Violence, including armed violence, can be a powerful

form of self-preservation, both physicallyand psychologically. Those living in poor or dangerous areas feel a continual threat to theirpersonal safety.

Of the three youth, all had owned firearms at some point, but only one admitted to actuallyshootingat another person, in what he called "revenge for the beating of a friend." By his ownadmission, however, he "didn't even come close" to hitting anybody. The same young man hadalso been shot at, and all three said that they knew both perpetrators and victims of shootings.

The young man who cited respect as being a motivating factor for carrying a weapon was alsoquick to point out that he had "had a gun, but for a long time didn't have bullets." The oldest sonof Somali immigrants, he, like the other twointerviewees, seemed to fluctuate awkwardlybetween being tough and being scared. In one instance, an emphatic story of a robbery faded intothe recollection of his heartbroken mother who "cried at the news that her son had been arrested."

Images of Guns and Success

The mythology in our culture surrounding the display and use of guns is powerful, indeed.According to Sheptycki, "there are powerful cultural forces that create a mythology around gunuse, creating a pathway to criminality. Popular culture, through violent film, music and videogames, often glorifies the use of arms. Some hip hop, for example, endorses profligacy andviolence. Its speech and mannerisms are often intentionally threatening, and endorsesocioeconomic ascension through violent means."

Generally, adolescent males are the main consumers of music that features firearm violence andmovies loaded with armed violent scenes. They also are the principal targets for violent videogames, especially first-person shooter games, which render theexperience of killing from theperspective of the player character and within which a gun is often the preferred means ofviolence. The youths most prone to armed violence, in particular those who perceive success tobe inaccessible through nonviolent means, may be the same ones who tend to identify with thesepopular representations of gun violence.

Pop culture frequently associates firearms with other popular symbols of male success, includingexpensive cars, designer clothing, jewellery and scantily clad, sexually available women. On adaily basis, the have-nots are riddled with media messages of what they should have. The hip-hop lifestyle, for example, is itself branded: Cristal champagne, Mercedes cars and Versaceclothing are all a part of this, coexisting alongside gun brands such as Glock or Smith & Wesson.Guns are a commodity in consumer culture and are advertised through songs, music videos, andmovies, along with other items portrayed as symbols of affluence.

"You see a guy with a gun, you see him in a car, wearing a gold chain and nice kicks—andespecially girls. Why wouldn't I want that?" explained one 20-year-old former gang member.Though now unarmed, he still confidently displays a gold chain and expensive shoes,presumably for the same reasons he used to carry a gun. When asked if he could attain such alifestyle without a gun, he responded, "sure, lots of people don't have guns: janitors don't haveguns, garbagemen don't have guns. Whatever, they don't have money, cars, or girls either."

Simply possessing a gun can make a man appear powerful, rich and strong. Marginalized youngmales frequently lack power, despite being socially conditioned to seek it. Masculinity, at leastas it is defined in popular culture, is deeply invested in a search for power and status, increasingthe desire to "weaponize" in order to counter any perceived emasculation.

Facing the Risk Factors

That is not to say that all young men who are exposed to hip hop, guns, or even poverty will turnto violent crime. Many moreyouth who face the same risk factors are reluctant to participate indelinquency or violence. According to Youth Services Ottawa, the vast majority of young menwith whom they are involved are nonviolent and are just trying to meet their basic needs. "Popculture and poverty affect more than just gang members and those that take up arms," saysDennis Rodgers, a lecturer in Urban Development at the London School of Economics. Throughhis research on violence, he has come to the opinion that "no study has ever managed to predicton a precise level what would predispose somebody to gang activity and armed crime." But ingeneral terms, research initiatives have identified several risk factors that do predispose youngmen to armed violence. In their 2006 article"Angry Young Men," the Small Arms Survey, anindependent research project based in Geneva, identified a number of these risk factors,including: being labelled as troublesome, low school achievement, having witnessed orexperienced violence in the home orcommunity, limited parental control, holding moretraditional or rigid views about gender, and having used violence and seen that violence producesrespect. A recognition that these risk factors exist can inform effective policies which will help toreduce

gun violence—not just among youth, but overall.

The Small Arms Survey has also identified a number of protective social factors that cansafeguard some young men from becoming involved in crime and violence. These includehaving valued and stable relationships with people whom they would disappoint by becominginvolved in armed violence, being aware of the risks associated with the violent version ofmasculinity, and finding alternative male peer groups that provide positive reinforcement fornonviolent male identities.

Examining Preventative Measures

A February 2008 report by Crime Prevention Ottawa on youth gang prevention in the citypointed to a number of initiatives to encourage these and other protective factors among at-riskyouth. Life-skills development, after-school programs, organized sports, academic support andmentoring and parent support programs are hardly glamorous, but they are the first line ofpreventative defence against armed criminality. Research and interviews suggest that when itcomes to the long-term solutions to gun violence among youth, prevention is the name of thegame, particularly the introduction of comprehensive initiatives that seek to both promoteprotective factors and remove risk factors.

According to the Small Arms Survey, it is also critical to reshape social symbolism surroundingguns and disarm the pop culture of violence. This requires a broad cultural shift in which mediaand pop culture can play a key role. In some instances, celebrities have stepped up to raiseawareness and serve as positive role models. In a 2007 interview with theToronto Star, ChristianPearce described how a hip-hop artist like Canada's Solitair can write a song like "Easy to Slip"about a cousin who lived a gangster lifestyle and was shot dead as a result. The song begins withthe artist looking up to his older 16-year-old cousin for the "gold chains, Nike Air Jordans,chicks on his jock", but ends in a warning against a violent life: "I ain't a hustler, my cousinpacked a gun, and his memory's the reason I will never pack one."

Similarly, the rhymes of Toronto's k-os focus on promoting a positive message, while at timesexpressing criticism of mainstream hip-hop culture's obsession with money, fame andglorification of violence. Just as media,

pop culture, or hip hop can contribute to the gunproblem, they can also play a powerful role in contributing to peaceful solutions. Solitair and k-os are examples of celebrities who can project a positive masculine ideal that is successful,admirable, and attractive, and that rejects gun violence.

A Collective Effort

While gun use is often seen as a male problem that men need to take responsibility forconfronting, women can play an important role in promoting peace. For instance, in Colombia,women living in the violence-ridden city of Pereira joined the local government's disarmamentefforts in a so-called "crossed legs" initiative that saw participating women withholding sex fromhusbands and boyfriends who refused to get rid of their weapons. Of course, the fostering ofhealthier gender relations and less destructive ideals of masculinity requires a much broaderempowerment of women than the selective withholding of sex from male partners engaged inviolence. Nevertheless, this example demonstrates that

women are vital to, and can be successfulin, promoting nonviolence among men, even in the world's most violent settings.

Indeed, reducing gun violence is a collective effort, and one that begins with a willingness tobelieve in young people. In part, this means recognizing that those affected by youth crimeshouldn't be simply labelled either criminals or victims. All of the youth interviewed for this[viewpoint], for instance, were at one point either direct or indirect victims as well asperpetrators of

gun crime. All became involved with guns through gangs for protection, statusand power. At the same time, all have mentioned that, to varying degrees of success, they aretrying to "grow up" and grow into new identities less rooted in violence. All are articulate andexpressive young men with hopes and aspirations, living in a world that seldom lives up to whatpop culture promises. As the oldest of the three told me, "living like a gangster is easy. Anyonecan beat somebody up, or carry a gun. Going to school or getting a job, that's hard. Not turning toviolence or gangs, that deserves respect."

"Of course, once the dustsettles, it may really be that video games, like most other forms ofentertainment, are simply that: entertainment, neither helpful nor harmful."

Christopher J. Ferguson is an assistant professor of behavioral sciences and criminal justice atTexas A&M University. In the following viewpoint, he argues that it has become all toocommon to blame video games for inciting individuals to act out in a violent manner. Fergusonmaintains that research has not shown a direct correlation between playing violent video

gamesand perpetrating violence. However, he asserts that despite this lack of correlation, the media,politicians, and social scientists are willing to insist that a connection exists between video gameviolence and real-word violence to further their own agendas and avoid discussing sensitiveissues, such as family violence, that may actually contribute to a more violent society.

As you read, consider the following questions:

1.

What flaws did Ferguson find in his meta-analysis of twenty-five violent-gamestudies?

2.

In the author's view, why does the "video-game hypothesis" remain so active despitecontradictory evidence?

3.

According to Ferguson, what is the video game Re-Mission, and how is it being used?

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, it was distressing to see the paroxysms of neuroticfinger-pointing and "expert witnessing" that inevitably followed. Beyond noting simply that abad (evil, some would say) man chose one day to make the lives of other individuals as hellish ashe felt his own to be,I don't think we'll ever come up with much more of a scientific explanationfor what leads people, mostly men, to become mass murderers. Let me put that another way:Beyond individuals who actually threaten in advance to carry out school shootings (which a

recent Secret Service report concluded was the only really useful indicator), no other behavior isparticularly predictive of such acts of senseless violence.

That's not very satisfying, is it? Perhaps for that reason, it seems to me that increasingly, as

aculture, we have shied away from holding people responsible for their behaviors, and insteadprefer to seek out easy or even abstract entities to blame. Events like school shootings tend tomake people nervous. Nervous people like reassurance. We wouldlike to think that such eventscan be explained, predicted, and prevented. We like scientists and politicians who stand up andclaim to have the answers so that we can fix the problem.

The New Media Violence Scapegoat

The difficulty is that this often leads to a witch hunt or moral panic, wherein explanations rely onweak social science or what is politically expedient. In past centuries, a variety of art forms havetaken the blame for society's problems. From literature to religious texts, to jazz, rock 'n' roll, andrap, to television, movies, and comic books, people have viewed various media as beingresponsible for personal failings, as if such media were like the serpent in the Garden of Eden,leading us astray from our natural goodness. Increasingly, in the past two decades, video gameshave been the scapegoat du jour. The video-game platform is the newest kid on the media blockand, as such, is subject to a particularly high dose of suspicion and scrutiny. I think that this iswrong and, indeed, dangerous.

It seemed that the Virginia Tech rampage was barely over before a few pundits beganspeculating on the role of video games. The lawyer and activist Jack Thompson asserted thatviolent games such as Counter-Strike may have been responsible for the shooter's actions.Although I have heard little to indicate conclusively that the perpetrator was an avid gamer, theprevalence of game playing among young men makes it likely that he would have crossed pathswith a violent game at some point ("He played Spy Versus Spy once when he was 12, that's theculprit!"). For instance, a 1996 study found that 98.7 percent of children of either gender playedsome video games, with violent games, like Streetfighter II, particularly popular among youngmen (93 percent of whom had played that one game alone). Since most young men today playviolent video games, it is usually not hard to "link" a violent crime with video-game playing ifyou are so inclined. This is the classic error of using a high-base-rate (very common) behavior toexplain a low-base-rate (rare) behavior. Using video-game-playing habits to predict schoolshootings is about as useful as noting that most or all school shooters were in the habit ofwearing sneakers and concluding that sneakers must be responsible for such violence.

The Lack of Evidence Relating Video Games and ViolentBehavior

I actually do research on violent video games. I certainly don't speak for others in the field, someof whom I know will disagree with my perspective, but I do speak from a

familiarity with theresearch and the literature. One meta-analysis of video-game studies, conducted this year byJohn Sherry, of Michigan State University, found little support for the belief that playing violentgames causes aggression. Recently I completed my own meta-analytic review (published in thejournal Aggression and Violent Behavior) of 25 violent-game studies and found that publicationbias and the use of poor and unstandardized measures of aggression were significant problemsfor this area ofresearch.

My meta-analysis concluded that there was no evidence to support either a causal or correlationalrelationship between video games and aggressive behavior. My impression is that social sciencemade up its mind that video games cause aggression before many data were available, and hassubsequently attempted to fit square pieces of evidence into round theoretical holes. Thethreshold for what appears to constitute "evidence" is remarkably low. Admittedly, publicationbias (the tendency to publish articles that support a hypothesis and not publish those that don't) isvery likely a widespread problem in the social sciences and is not unique to video-game studies.Perhaps this is really a reflection on human nature. I may sound hopelessly postmodern here, butsometimes we forget that scientists are mere humans, and that the process of science, as a humanenterprise, may always have difficulty rising above a collective and dogmatic pat on the backrather than a meaningful search for truth.

Creating Studies to Support Policy Decisions

Unfortunately, I think it is a worrisome reflection on social science in general that socialscientists may be too prone to make big and frightening pronouncements from weak results. Thatviolent crime rates in the United States have gone down significantly since 1994 (despite somesmall recent increases) while video games have gotten more popular and more violent should, inand of itself, be sufficient to reject the video-game-violence hypothesis (and the rest of themedia-violence hypothesis with it). Some media researchers attempt to defuse this argument bysuggesting that "other factors" are at play, but no theory should be allowed to survive such aretreat to an unfalsifiable position—that it never need actually fit with real-world data. Couldyou imagine how far the debate on global warming would have gotten if the earth's atmospherictemperatures were decreasing while pollutants were being released?

In my opinion, the video-game hypothesis remains because it fits well with the dogma of socialscience (which has yet to escape from an obsession with deterministic learning models that viewhumans as passive programmed machines rather than active in determining their own behavior),and it is politically expedient. Politicianscan use "media violence" to enact popular (butunconstitutional) legislation censoring or otherwise limiting access to violent media, legislationthat can appeal to both political conservatives and political liberals. (Religious conservativesmight be bemused to know that some media-violence researchers recently published an articlesuggesting that reading passages from the Bible with violent content increases "aggression" inmuch the same way that video games supposedly do. So if video games have to be restrictedfrom children, apparently so do at least some portions of the Bible.) By stating that suchlegislation is based on "concern for children," politicians can cast their opponents as beingunconcerned with children while stripping parents of their rights to decide what media areappropriate for their children. In such a political environment, the video-game-violencehypothesis has persisted long after it should have been laid to rest.

Blaming Video Games, Ignoring Human Nature

All this is no idle concern. Media issues serve to distract us from more-sensitive topics that maybe real contributors to violent behavior, notably violence in families—although in fairness, notall abused people become violent offenders. I also posit that many of us prefer to blame others,particularly an abstract entity such as the media, for our problems rather than accept personalresponsibility when we or our children behave badly. That's the crux of it, I think. Video games,like the rest of the media, form a faceless specter

that we have called into being with our owninternal desires for sex and violence, yet can turn against when we need a straw man to blame forour own recklessness.

What's lost in the discussion is that there have been several publications suggesting thatviolentgames may be related to increased performance in some areas of cognition, particularlyvisuospatial cognition. This is a new research area, and I certainly don't wish to reverse the errorof overstating the link between video games and aggression by producing my ownoverstatement. But I do think that, instead of fueling up the bonfires and throwing in the gameconsoles, we need to have a serious discussion of both sets of potential effects. Given the allureof violent video games, it may be advisable to consider how some games with violent contentmay be used to further educational purposes. For instance, a first-person-shooter game (thoughcertainly a mild one compared with some) called Re-Mission is being studied in relation toyoung adults with cancer. One group of youths who played this game demonstrated bettercancer-treatment adherence, better self-efficacy and quality of life, and more cancer-relatedknowledge than did those in a control group who did not play the game. Of course, once the dust

settles, it may really be that video games, like most other forms of entertainment, are simply that:entertainment, neither helpful nor harmful.

I don't know how it came to be that we, as a culture, ceased holding people responsible for theiractions. How

did we come to feel that we are programmed like machines? How did we come toembrace the Brave New World not as a dystopia to be feared but as a panacea for all of ourhuman guilt? When a man or woman picks up a weapon and premeditates the end of anotherhuman life, it is not because he or she was programmed by a video game but because thatindividual made a conscious choice—not to play a game, but to kill. This darkness lurks notwithin our computers, televisions, books, or music, but rather within our species and, sometimes,ourselves.

Further Readings

Books



Tim Allen and Jean Seaton The Media of Conflict: War Reporting and Representations ofEthnic Violence. New York: Zed Books, 1999.

"In 2005 ... just12 percent of the videogames sold were violent enough to bear an M-rating[mature] by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, the industry's voluntary ratings group."

The following viewpoint is a response to reports of studies linking violent video games

toaggression. The author, David Kushner, claims that the behavior called "aggression" in thesestudies is not related to criminal violent activity. He also criticizes studies for using old gamesrather than recent ones and for studying play for only a short period of time. He concludes that,although a link between video games and what the researchers define as "aggression" may exist,there is no causal link between violent games and violent criminal activity. Kushner is an authorand editor and serves as

an adjunct professor of journalism at New York University.

As you read, consider the following questions:

1.

According to the author, how do researchers measure aggression?

2.

What other pastimes does Kushner think could be linked to aggression if they werestudied?

3.

What does the British Board of Film Classification survey, as quoted by Kushner, revealabout game violence?

We can assume two things about you if you're reading this magazine [Electronic GamingMonthly]: You don't think playing violent videogames

can make someone go aggro [aggressivebehavior] in real life, and you haven't authored any studies linking violent games to violentbehavior. But the people who do believe and have authored such studies have gotten a lot of playlately in the mainstream media—and they're putting the future of your favorite pastime at risk.

Following the Apri1 16 [2007] Virginia Tech shootings, the Washington Post reported onlinethat the killer had a history of playing the PC squad-based multiplayer shooter Counter-Strike.

By the time the paper took down the reference from its website the next day (due, the writer latersaid, to a necessary update), it was too late. Ubiquitous antigame crusader Jack Thompson raisedthe specter on CNN. Dr. Phil played the blame game on Larry

King Live. "The mass murderersof tomorrow are the children of today that are being programmed with this massive violenceoverdose," he said.

Then on April 26, the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] weighed in with its report,three years in the making, on the impact of media violence (particularly television violence) onkids. It suggests that Congress can step in to protect kids from harm by regulating violence onTV without violating the First Amendment. The thought of the Feds legislating videogamesstrikes many as dangerous. The American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] calls it "politicalpandering." Howard Stern calls Dr. Phil an a-hole. Once again, the debate that has run fromColumbine to Blacksburg continues to rage. And when it does, each side looks to the same placeto buttress their arguments: scientific research on the effects of violent videogames. But withsensational media and political distortion in the way, getting to the truth of the research is thetrickiest game of all.

Defining Aggression

At the end of the day, scientists—including those behind the studies cited in the FCC report—still aren't sure if playing violent games leads to real-life violence at all. "The research doesn'tsupport the notion that [playing violent games] leads toaggression," says Dr. JonathanFreedman, a psychologist from the University of Toronto. "It doesn't even deal with the questionof whether it leads to criminal violent behavior or real violence. At most, it addresses thequestion of whether it leads to aggression, which I don't think it does."

One of the problems with the studies is how the term "aggression" is defined. "The missingelement is that most of these studies, if you look at them just a little bit critically, don't reallymeasure what a lot of people purport they're measuring, and people don't understand how theyfall short," says sociologist Dr. Karen Sternheimer of the University of Southern California andauthor of Kids These Days: Facts and Fictions About Today's Youth. While the general publicequates aggression with violent behavior, actual violent behavior has never been measured—forobvious reasons. "We can't have people assault, rape, or murder someone" in the lab, says Dr.Brad Bushman, a University of Michigan psychologist who studies the effects of media violence.Instead, researchers are left to measure innocuous examples of so-called aggressive behavior—behavior that doesn't remotely resemble criminally violent activity. This has ranged from havingsubjects punch an inflatable Bozo doll to, more commonly, blast opponents with a loud noise.

Even Dr. Karen Dill, who with Dr. Craig Anderson coauthored one of the most-cited studies—2000's "Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and inLife"—admits "hearing the noise is not harmful." Nevertheless, the report opens with an allusionto Columbine and purports that "one possible contributing factor is violent games." To many,that's an egregious leap. "Pressing a button that delivers a short burst of loud noise is prettyremote from real aggression," Freedman notes.

Studies Use Old Games

But it's not just the measures of aggression that are questionable—it's the means through whichparticipant reactions are elicited in the first place. Reading the fine printin the Dill and Andersonstudy, for example, reveals that the researchers used outdated, mismatched games and requiredan absurdly brief amount of actual playtime from the subjects. The researchers compared theresponse to people playing two games released

in the early 1990s: Wolfenstein 3D, the first first-person shooter, and the puzzle adventure Myst. The disparity between the game styles raisesquestions about the results. Though the goal of the study is to explore the effect of violent gameson aggression, a shooter is sure to elicit more aggressive behavior than a puzzle game. It's likecomparing apples to hand grenades. Wouldn't it have been better to compare two action games—one with violence and one without?

The study required 32 undergrads to play the games for 15 minutes each. They were then giventhe opportunity to send a noise blast to an opponent—often just a computer proxy—after theyfinished the game. "You can't study people for 20 minutes and know what's going to happen topeople in society 10

years later," says Dr. Dmitri Williams of the University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign. Williams recently authored one of the first long-term studies, in which heobserved players of the online PC role-playing-game Asheron's Call for more than 56 hoursin aperiod of a month. His results? "I found no evidence of increased aggression or aggressiveattitudes," he says.

Dr. Patrick Markey, a psychology professor at Villanova University, decided to take anotherperspective: studying what role a person's anger level before playing a game has on theaggressive behavior coming out. And Markey, unlike some of his colleagues, actually usesgames played in the last decade. The 167 students who participated played games such as Doom3 and Project Gotham Racing. Hisconclusion: The people who had previously filled outquestionnaires reflecting an even-keel personality were less aggro after playing a violent game.Those who had a more aggressive disposition were more susceptible to these heightenedemotions.

While some

could conclude in broad strokes that games cause aggression, the nuances tellanother story, Markey notes. "The general research shows there is an effect of violent games onaggression, but what gets lost is [that] this effect isn't that big," he says. And, of course,videogames aren't the only pastimes that could lead to aggression: dodgeball, paintball, and a badbeat in Texas Hold 'Em can heighten arousal, too. Dr. Vincent Mathews, a radiologist at IndianaUniversity who has studied the brain's response

to violent videogames, suggests that the effectsof these other activities would be comparable. "I would think that paintball or dodgeball wouldshow similar results," he says. But no one is calling for these games to be banned.

No Causal Link Between Games and Violence

Critics of violent games cite the studies as further proof that media violence leads to murder. AsThompson wrote in March 2007, "The American Psychological Association [APA] in August2005 found a clear causal link between violent games and teen aggression." But as politicalwatchdog site GamePolitics.com astutely reported, Dr. Elizabeth Carll, who co-chaired the study,wanted to make clear the "the resolution did not state that there was a direct causal link to anincrease in teen violence

as a result of playing videogames. Rather, [it stated] an increase inaggressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, and a decrease in helpful behavior as aresult of playing violent videogames."

If no one has said there's a causal link between

games and real-life violence, why does it keepmaking headlines, and why do these studies get cited so much? "The [American PsychologicalAssociation] is a political organization ... and they do what is politically expedient like any othergroup," says Dr. Christopher J. Ferguson of Texas A&M International University's Departmentof Behavioral, Applied Sciences and Criminal Justice. Ferguson recently released a study named,with typically academic wordiness, "Evidence for publication bias in videogame violence effectsliterature: A meta-analytic review." In it, he finds what he calls "a systematic bias for hot-buttonissues" that results in over-statements and misleading results.

The authors of the reports bristle when their research is challenged. Dill, after agreeing to beinterviewed for this story, later e-mailed to request that her interview not be used because ofwhat she perceived to be an effort to "push the tired 'party line' that the research is wrong." Hercolleague, Anderson, declined entirely, saying an interview would be "pointless."

But it's not just their research that's being challenged—it's the manner in which the findings arepresented. "From the present body of literature, there's nothing that supports a relationshipbetween violent videogame playing and aggression—not correlational or causal," Ferguson says."The moral of the story is that scientists ought to be using much more measured tones indiscussing what has become a political issue rather than giving in to the urge to engage inhyperbole." In other words, violent games sell—not to kids, but to the general public at large.Like Elvis in the 50s, or Dungeons & Dragons in the 1980s, videogames are still viewed as thedangerous scourge of youth culture. In the face of awful, inexplicable tragedies, media violenceis an easy target.

Context Is Important

What's lost to the game-violence critics and public is a dose of reality, not only about the truth ofthe results but the context. "I don't think they understand the way the media are used

in daily lifeenough," Williams says of the researchers. "They tend to focus more on lab research and ignorelong-term research. People in the psychology community are less likely to pay attention to thesocial context of media use." But others are. The British Board of Film Classification conducteda survey that found that "the violence helps make the play exhilaratingly out of reach of ordinarylife.... Gamers seem not to lose awareness that they are playing a game and do not mistake thegame for real life."

And considered in light of recent youth crime statistics, all the noise blasts don't pass the musterof common sense. In 2005, for example, just 12 percent of the videogames sold were violentenough to bear an M-rating [mature] by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, the industry'svoluntary ratings group. At the same time, youth crime is dropping precipitously. The number ofkids under 17 who committed murder fell 65 percent between 1993 and 2004. "If this wasaffecting all kids in a bad way we'd

Even the surgeon general's youth-violence report, which the FCC cites in its recent findings,couldn't find a convincinglink. "Taken together, findings to date suggest that media violence hasa relatively small impact on violence," the surgeon general reported. And the specific inferencesabout game violence were even less swaying. "The overall effect size for both randomized andcorrelational studies was small for physical aggression and moderate for aggressive thinking...,"the surgeon general found. "The impact of videogames on violent behavior has yet to bedetermined."

So what are we left with? A possible link between violent media and loosely defined "aggressivebehavior" (noise blasts, clown-doll punching, and so on) but no evidence that playing violentgames actually causes violent—let alone criminal—actions in real life. "It's time to move beyondblanket condemnations and frightening anecdotes and focus on developing targeted educationaland policy interventions based on solid data," Olson suggested. "As with the entertainment ofearlier generations, we may look back on today's games with nostalgia, and our grandchildrenmay wonder what the fuss was about."

Further Readings

Books



Richard Abanes What Every Parent Needs to Know About Video Games. Eugene, OR:Harvest House Publishers, 2006.

"Self-regulation is the only acceptable solution to concerns about children playing violent video games."

In the following viewpoint,Gregory

Kenyota

contends that legislators are wasting time and taxpayermoney proposing unconstitutional legislation that would regulate video games. He believes that gamesare protected by the First Amendment (freedom of speech). Instead, he states that the EntertainmentSoftware Rating Board (ESRB) should continue to improve the ratings system and parents should beeducated to make good use of the system.Kenyota is a student at Fordham University School of Law.

As you read, consider the following questions:

1.

Why does the author believe that video games should not be blamed for the Virginia Techshootings?

2.

According to this viewpoint, what has the Federal Trade Commission said about theEntertainment Software Rating Board?

3.

What does the author say is the proper solution for legislators?

On April 16, 2007, a lone gunman went on a shooting spree on the Virginia Tech campus, killingthirty people. Later that night, Dr. Phil McGraw, the host of theDr. Phil

show, went onLarryKing Live

to discuss the Virginia Tech shooting and stated that:

[T]he problem is we are programming these people as a society. You cannot tell me—common sensetells you that if these kids

are playing video games, where they're on a mass killing spree in a videogame, it's glamorized on the big screen, it's become part of the fiber of our society. You take that andmix it with a psychopath, a sociopath or someone suffering from mental illness and add in a dose ofrage, the suggestibility is too high. And we're going to have to start dealing with that. We're going tohave to start addressing those issues and recognizing that the mass murders [sic] of tomorrow are thechildren of today that are being programmed with this massive violence overdose.

The call to blame video games was reminiscent of the Columbine [High School] shootings eightyears earlier. Unlike Columbine, where the shooters had some connections to video games,subsequent investigations of the Virginia Tech shooter by police found "[n]ot a single videogame, console or gaming gadget" and the shooter's suite-mate "said he had never seen [theshooter] play video games." Despite this lack of evidence, some people like attorney JackThompson still blame video games for the Virginia Tech shooting.

The recent controversies and legislation over violent video games are clear examples of criticsblaming violent video games for negative effects without any support for those accusations.Video games did not turn the Virginia Tech shooter into a killer. The research on violent videogames has not found any causal connection between violent video games and childrencommitting violent acts. The need to regulate violent video games because of theharm theysupposedly cause is illusory at best.

Legislators Need to Stop Proposing UnconstitutionalLegislation

Legislators therefore need to stop attempting to regulate violent video games with laws thatcourts have repeatedly held are unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects the content ofviolent video games and any law attempting to regulate them based on their violent content willbe subject to a strict scrutiny analysis. The exceptions to the First Amendment proffered by thestates that video games should fall under such as obscenity, content harmful to minors, andincitement do not apply to violent video games. There is no need for these laws and passing themonly ends up costing taxpayers money after the courts invalidate them. District Judge Brady ofthe Middle District Court of Louisiana admonished the Louisiana legislature for its violent videogame legislation in stating:

This Court is dumbfounded that the Attorney General and the State are in the position of having to paytaxpayer money as

attorney's fees and costs in this lawsuit. The Act which this Court foundunconstitutional passed through committees in both the State House and Senate, then through the fullHouse and Senate, and to be promptly signed by the Governor. There are lawyers at each stage of thisprocess. Some of the members of these committees are themselves lawyers. Presumably, they havestaff members who are attorneys as well. The State House and Senate certainly have staff members whoare attorneys. The governor has additional attorneys—the executive counsel. Prior to the passage of theAct, there were a number of reported cases from a number of jurisdictions which held similar statutes tobe unconstitutional (and in which the defendant was ordered to pay substantial attorney's fees). TheCourt wonders why nobody objected to the enactment of this statute. In this court's view, the taxpayersdeserve more from their elected officials.

Self-Regulation Is the Best Solution

Self-regulation is the only acceptable solution to concerns about children playing violent videogames. The Federal government in 1994 wanted the game industry to self-regulate and that isexactly what the video game industry has been doing with the ESRB [Entertainment SoftwareRating Board]. The FTC [Federal Trade Commission] has consistently found that the ESRB hasimproved its ratings system and awareness ever since it first started investigating it. If a videogame developer develops a game that the ESRB considers too violent, the video game retailersand the

video game manufacturers will also take actions that will make sure the game does noteven make it to publication. There is no evidence that the ESRB has failed as a ratings system insuch a way that the government needs to step in and take over.

The proper solution for legislators is to work with the video game industry, not against them.ESA [Entertainment Software Association] senior VP [Vice President], and general counsel GailMarkels has stated that "[i]t couldn't be clearer that the real answer is not regulation, buteducation of parents to empower them to use the video game rating system, parental controls ingame consoles, and other available tools... We look forward to working with any elected officialto help educate parents about making appropriate video game choices for their unique families."Maybe someday legislators across the country will spend their time and taxpayers' money oneducating parents rather than trying to regulate the video game industry.